• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: "andrew welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:26:35 +0200

Let's see
>  Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> wrote:
> > Force is the feedback effect over time of the naïve indices in use.

Do You mean: due to the simplicity of the indexing, no metadata etc.,
the primary mode of determining importance of any specific resource is
a democratic decision.

Indirectly you are indicating that Google's not pointing at enough
resources for "false eigen-index locking" suggests that their index is
inadequate to an expert's requirements in a particular subject matter?

> You may
> > have missed earlier discussions on this list of the ease with which Google
> > can be gamed.  All inbound-linking systems that scale out of some boundary
> > share that characteristic without filtering controls.

Do you mean: A reference to the point above - because of the massive
scale of Google's index can be gamed by sending in more information.
That it needs to be filtered tomake sure there is no gaming?
> One of those is
> > vetting assertions against other assertions with time-variant properties or
> > restricting the domain of the citation (eg, inverted indices restrict the
> > domain to the book; library cards restrict it to the book title, author,
> > date, etc; cross-domain indices make no assertions beyond location, and so
> > on).

Do you mean: Google Scholar, Froogle and other specialized access
points to the Google Index attempt to combat the above named problem?



>>  Google knows exactly what I am talking about.

evidently not: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Do+you+know+what+Len+Bullard+is+talking+about%22

sorry, couldn't resist.

I guess this will give me a chance to find out what have I understood
of what Len Bullard has said though. Which I probably haven't.

>And attaching linking semantics in a CSS declaration is somehow more
>objective?

>Someone soon will suggest that keeping all of this independent of any
>particular syntax will be better.  That will bring us back around to the
>architectural forms era.  And so it goes.

why yes. I suppose someone would http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html


Also I have to say that my understanding of an eigen-index (which I no
doubt falsely understand as being an index over a number of
eigenvalues belonging to a selection of eigenvectors in a matrix)
does not allow me to make sense of the statement: "Two very serious
problems emerge out of that:  claiming credit where
there is prior art making the IP situation difficult for everyone, and
claims that lead to false eigen-index locking (the Google/Wikipedia effect)."

If someone had asked me what the false locking of an eigen-index meant
I would have guessed something similar to "that an operation on a set
of eigenvalues does not produce non-eigenvalues as the output?" (which
I would have tried to say with a particularly stupid and humble look
upon my face) But this is evidently not what it means. What does it
mean?

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

• Follow-Ups:
  • Eigen-Value Indexing in Second Order Systems
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>

• References:
  • Re: XML-DEV list
    • From: "andrew welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: XML-DEV list
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • Re: XML-DEV list
    • From: "andrew welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>